The big names in the ski industry are drifting from bad to worse, but creativity, innovation and marketing are not yet dead - and hopefully will bring some freshness and renewal:
check that out and enjoy - no opportunity to try these 333skis yet but would love to do so!

http://333skis.com/

The Americans are so innovative with this kind of community thing (well I’m not forgetting Bumtribe, Duret, Zag and friends). PMGear are another good example. Did you find the link on Skipass? I wonder what the weights are like for touring?

I like his project because proximity, customization and customer involvment is going one step further than our beloved French garage factories. Should we say he is really thinking out of the - recycled - box

He is working on several backcountry skis with lighter construction and will communicate the weight on skipass. No miracle, from the current construction it seems a fat should be around 4kgs.

Well Boheme used to be 100 meters from my house so you don’t get much more local than that… but then they use exotic woods from the rain forest.

I liked the eco side to the project. I’d be interested in ski recycling as this seems to be quite a hard thing to achieve given the construction.

Our American friend needs to look at Paulownia for backcountry skis, very very light. Dynafit use it for their top end skis like the Gasherbrum (2900 grammes in 178cm the pair for 95mm underfoot).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulownia

Hello,

Michael at 333.  When a forum starts sending in referals, I try to contact and contribute.  So here is my first post.  As far as recylcing used skis, I think of it all the time.  A good tune on somthing old, or even stressing the ski, bending hard over a camber block in the summer to re introduced camber can bring back life.  People get on new skis and think, holy shit, these skis are great, mostly though, the tune is fresh. 

Carbon rods inset to a milled core can reduce weight.  I’ll post a link in you’d like to a aero space supplier that sells at a cool price. 

I’m under the gun these days, so reading your posts helps.

Thanks
Michael

I remember when we used to ski on old wooden skis (well grandpa anyway) during the summer we would store with a wooden block under the heel area to recamber them. I hadn’t thought of this for modern ski storage but it sounds like a good idea.

For backcountry (touring kind of use) I think a ski should be under 3kg (that must be something like 6lbs 8oz) the pair in something like 170-175cm length. I know friends who are making their own skis in that range so it should be possible for 333 as well. That would be interesting. I think for touring something around 75-80mm under foot with not too much sidecut is ideal for edge hold on the steeps and traverses. Maybe a 25m turn radius. What do other people think? Or is everone away for the summer now !

I see Michael set up the Scotty Bob factory amongst other projects which is a pretty impressive resume.

And don’t mention the compulsory accessory of the wooden planks of our childhood: the leather mountain shoes! At least proper balance on skis was quick to come

Then, the ideal backcountry/ touring ski is easy to describe!
- Very light while robust
- Yet stiff with high torsional rigidity and relatively straight for chutes, couloirs and other steep and icy venues
- Curvy with an agressive tip for crisp carving on spring snow
- Wide and soft with a rocker for pow
- Relatively stiff with a soft progressive tip for crust, crud and tracked
- Long for speed, stability and sensations
- Short on the backpack
- Snappy to react quickly to terrain change and narrow turns
- Damp to filter vibes on those long glacier runs
... and certainly a few more things!

Not found it yet!

The closest skis in terms of performance and pleasure - not weight - are in the all mountain/ freeride categories. Reasonable options to carry in the wilderness weight from 3,5kgs to 4+ kgs for 180/190cms. With modern touring shoes and bindings, the total is certainly not heavier than touring skis from the past, and mountains were as high then, and folks would climb as much vertical so…

I have made my choice and toured on “real” skis for many years! As long as we don’t try and climb a thousand meters an hour, I don’t find it a problem at all…

Yet I have not tried the newer generation of wider and lighter touring skis, I suspect they get better - but in the same time freeride skis get better too! Or the breakthrough will come from carbon boots and skis that cost a fortune… I guess I will stick to the heavier but more pleasurable side… 90 or more mm with a strong response in all snows, lively wood inside and no fear for speed!

Let’s wait for Michael’s prototypes - with air channels, carbon channels or exotic woods if they are to be light

I tend to agree with you Eric, I’ve mostly been touring on my Atomic Sweet Daddies this winter. 80mm underfoot, around 3kg in 172, short enough for skiing all the trees we have in the Chartreuse. Plus when I went back to my TG10 for the last month of spring skiing they were just so light!

I think camber to rocker can give a ski fast response times in the chute (camber) and still punch “over” the hard wind blown (rocker at tip, 8 cm aft from a full tip).  I have a set of skis going out like this, I believe it is somebody on your forum. 

I am learning how to post on the forums.  My wish is to engage in a technical conversation, listen learn and talk when I have something to say.  If I am out of line, please inform.

So, I am setting up an excel spread sheet to pre determine the weight of a ski.  Working form sq. cm of material; glass, ptex edge per length, resin and a calc on the core.  This way, along with the performance gradient, a person can anticipate finish on a ski.  Will be open source so you can fiddle. 

As for re introducing camber, [summer], the heat might be a factor.  The resin systems in a ski are thermally responsive, in heat they are happier to conform. 

Also a vid on the horizontal core showing torsional strength at 333, both in practice and theory.

If I am out of line, just let me know. 

Michael
333